Page images

a section operator. Whie these men have certain minor supervisory functions they are not considered part of the management.

Functions and responsibilities.-1. Complete jurisdiction over his workers in the control of practical or technical phases of his processes and equipment, but with no power to select, transfer, discharge, or recommend such action.

2. Quality and quantity of production. 3. For having materials, tools, and supplies always at hand for the subsequent job to be done.

4. For the set-up of tools and for making adjustments to machines ready for production in the shortest time possible.

5. For the reduction of delays to equipment or operations.

6. Proper sequence or priority of production through his units according to instruction.

7. Necessary clerical and other routine work involved in his process.
8. Proper distribution of work under his jurisdiction.
9. For strict observance of company rules.

10. Responsibility of his workers as their teacher or demonstrator in the proper technique of the work.

11. For assisting workers on their machine or in their duties whenever possible, to operate machine when necessary, and who may be transferred to productive work at any time.

JOHN H. EIKENBERG, General Industrial Engineer, Office of General Manufacturing Manager. Dr. WALTERS. In other words, that is one of the first principles of management, to tell the man what his job is. If this bill does not pass- I mean, if we cannot get some clear distinction to what his duties are, we do not believe that he will do a good job. And we emphatically solicit you in this bill to give the foreman his definite management job which we have defined clearly for him.

The next thing we wanted to know, and we have it here, a list of organization charts, with all of our foremen on it, so that he knows definitely where he stands in the management picture. We give him that and talk it over and discuss with him his job. And if you make him know that he is a definite part of the management and that he has not only a say about the policies but that he has control over those policies, and besides you give him a clear picture of the organization of our company, and what his duties are. We take him into our confidence on policies, and I wish to submit-I have here in my brief case a personnel and labor relations policies which we ask the Government to define. In fact, we mimeograph our policies which the management said, “we thought these ought to be good policies." We took those mimeographed policies and said to the foremen, “Now here is what we believe-we would like for you to change these which would make a good management. We would like your suggestions and improvements in detailing of those policies.” So that our foremen are a definite part of the management because they help make the policies.

I have here a group of contracts which we have with the unions. Next week we go before all of our foremen in one of our plants and ask for, in this collective bargaining contract, just what should be changed. In other words, "What are your opinions? Should we change this from the standpoint of management?” I ask you, gentlemen, if there is any possibility of a man talking on a collective-bargaining contract next week if he is a part of the union. I do not see how he can do it. Then, therefore, we think the qualification of the foreman's job and a definite statement about the Government as to where he belongs without limiting his choice so that he can stil)

choose whether he shall be management or union. By that we feel his job will go along much better and he will do a much better job rather than vacillate. And why? Because Congress has not settled this dispute between management and labor as to just where the foremen belong.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had it only about 10 days. We are going to try to do something about it in the next 20 or 30 days.

Dr. WALTERS. That is the principle of why we exclude foremen and we have talked to them and emphasized that to them, and I would like to emphasize in that we believe the position of the government here is to a certain extent just like two porcupines in Rome where it is very cold. If the two porcupines get too close together, they will stick each other, and if they get too far apart, they will freeze to death. We think that the function of Government is to just keep them far enough apart and to keep them from getting too close, so that they can work harmoniously together.

With that in view, then, we think this democracy of ours is sort of a three-legged stool. You have one leg of that stool in management, and one leg of that stool in labor, and the other is Government. And 'we believe that the stool of democracy will be as weak as any one of the legs and if we do not have strong management and strong labor and strong Government, we do not believe that we are going to have a strong democracy which we thoroughly believe in. Gentlemen, I give you that as our belief that this bill should be passed for the Government to clearly distinguish whether he shall be union or he shall be management.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. DURHAM. This probably has not any direct bearing on the question involved, but with reference to the manufacture of the material, we have discussed here for the last 3 or 4 years on this copper and brass product, and we have gone into that quite thoroughly. So far as the supply of raw materials is concerned, are you at the present time securing enough material to operate?

Dr. WALTERS. We are.
Mr. DURHAM. To full capacity?

Dr. WALTERS. I would not say to full capacity. We could use more copper, but within recent months that has improved very greatly.

Mr. DURHAM. Has any of this copper that was frozen by the War Production Board been channeled to your concern!

Dr. WALTERS. We have had our share. The companies in the industry get together and it is allocated according to our production capacity.

Mr. DURHAM. They are channeling that which has been frozen throughout the country.

Dr. WALTERS. So far as I know we have not had any great difficulty in securing the proper proportion of that. Several months ago we could have used a great deal more of copper. I do not mean to say that we have all we want, but that is improving.

Mr. DURHAM. Why I asked that question is that there have been a lot of complaints about this by these dealers throughout the country where copper has been frozen, and it has not been moved at all.

Dr. WALTERS. Well, that may have been the criticism a few months

ago, but, as far as I know, that is a little out of my field because I am in the personnel relations, but so far as I know that situation is not urgent at the present time.

Mr. DURHAM. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elston ?

Mr. Elston. I presume that you have given the bill, H. R. 2339, some study?

Dr. WALTERS. That is right.

Mr. ELSTON. Have you given any thought to section 4, which is an absolute prohibition against any supervisory employee'joining a labor union?

Dr. WALTERS. That is right; I have read it several times. I studied it for some time.

Mr. Elston. Now, if the act should pass, that would be the first time Congress has ever made a positive declaration that any person could not join a labor union.

Dr. WALTERS. Well, to me that is not denying him the right of a free choice. He still has the right to choose. In other words, if a judge chooses to be a judge, then he gives up the right of a personal practice. He chooses. If, as I understand, the honorable chairman is a Baptist, when he becomes a Baptist he gives up to a certain extent the right to be a Presbyterian or some other religion. And the same thing happens in many cases. You have the right to choose, but once you choose, in other words, if you choose to be a Democrat, or if you choose to be a Republican, if you choose one then you do not choose the other. Then, it seems to me, you have the same right under this act. You either choose, you give the foreman the right to choose himself whether he shall be a member of a union, or whether he shall be a member of management. We feel there is a certain conflict of interest there, and there may be an interference on the part of the foreman with the organization under him and when there is that conflict, then it seems to us the Government should step in and decide thé conflict, that here is a standard by which we are going, “You either choose to be management or you choose to be union.”

Mr. ELSTON. I am fully cognizant of your problem, and I also realize it ought to be decided by somebody. By the courts or by Congress, because I am wondering if Congress has the right to arbitrarily say that any person cannot join a labor union.

Dr. WALTERS. I do not object to the way that you put the question, but I would say this, you are not limiting his choice. And as long as you do not limit his free choice, then you are not going against the constitutional right of free choice. In other words, you are not stating to him that he must not be a member of a union or must be. You are telling him to choose of his own free will and accord whether he shall be a member of union or of management.

Mr. ELSTON. The way the act reads, it says that he shall not be eligible to membership in any labor organization. Dr. WALTERS. That is right.

Mr. Elston. The way the act reads it says he cannot be eligible to any labor organization or organization engaged in collective bargaining with the contractor. I am not saying that is unconstitutional. I have not given it enough study to have reached any conclusion about it.

[ocr errors]

But if we should pass an act of this kind, it would be the first time Congress ever said that any person, no matter what his status might be, could not join a labor union.

Dr. WALTERS. My opinion is that you are not limiting his choice. You are giving him that choice. For example, when you say he shall not be a member of a union, that does not prohibit him from being a member of the union. When management asks him to be a foreman, the management asks him to choose whether he shall be a member of the union or whether he shall be a foreman or whether he shall be a member of no union at all for that matter. I suppose when we ask him to be a foreman, we do not know whether he is a member of the union or not.

Mr. Elston. I understand that. Where management asks him which he wants to be. If he wants to remain an ordinary employee, or does he want to become a foreman? But can Congress say that he cannot do one or the other?

Dr. WALTERS. I believe it can because it does not prohibit his choice to free choice as to whether he shall be a member of management or labor.

Mr. Elston. Well, we say that he cannot belong to a labor union.

Dr. WALTERS. That is right, but not until after he becomes a member of management.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ELSTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Doesn't it say that a labor union engaged in collective bargaining?

Mr. ELSTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And doesn't that necessarily mean in collective bargaining with that particular management ?

Mr. Elston. Well, that is the question, of course. And if those words were not in there, I do not think there would be any question but what the act would be unconstitutional, because I doubt very much that you can say that any person cannot join any organization that he wants to. I doubt that very much. But when you do say that he shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization engaged in collective bargaining you may get outside of the constitutional prohibition. I do not know, but I am wondering if you have given any thought to that?

Dr. WALTERS. I have very definitely. I come back to my original argument because it does not limit his free choice of collective bargaining. He can be a member of a collective bargaining agency if he wants to, and the example I gave you of one of our foremen who was a member of a union before, an officer of a union, and after he was a foreman he felt, or he decided, he made the wrong choice. In other words, the same as you may be a member of a certain church, and you want to go into some other church, you certainly can. Well, the foreman, after he is a foreman, and he decides he wants to be a member of the union and a member of our collective bargaining group, therefore, he has a right to choose and we do not limit his right in any way, and he went back into the union and is just as active as he was before. When he was a member of management he was definitely a member of management and helped us to make policies and helped

to make the safety rules and all the other rules coming under the present labor relation laws. But then he felt he should become a member of the collective bargaining group and he could not sit on both sides of the table and make rules for them and bargain collectively and help us make our contract and at the same time be a member of the union. We believe there is a conflict of interest there. There is an interference on the part of the foreman of the free organization of his employees. We believe there is an inherent desire in everybody in industry, or practically everybody, to advance and when he gets to that point of advance, management should have the right to select its management representatives to the extent that we can ask the man to choose freely whether he shall be a member of management or whether he shall be a member of the union.

Mr. Elston. I appreciate every one of your reasons, every one of them, but the only thought in my mind is whether it is within the power of Congress to say he cannot belong to a labor union that is engaged in collective bargaining under the Wagner Act.

Dr. WALTERS. My answer is, I believe that this can be done, because it does not take away his right of a free choice.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness has stated his position five or six times, so let us not encumber the record.

Mr. Elston. Did you ever get a legal opinion from your counsel on that?

Dr. WALTERS. That is right. Our legal opinion is to that effect, that you cannot mix the two; that is, you cannot mix management and labor.

Mr. ELSTON. That is all I wanted to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? If that is all, we thank you very much for your statement, and appreciate your clear distinction between a prohibition against a free choice and a right to make a free choice.



The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Guy W. Vaughan, president of the Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Co. Will you give us your position on this matter? Do you have a prepared statement that you wish to make ?

Mr. Vaughan. I have not a prepared statement, but I have a statement to make today in connection with this hearing. The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.

Mr. Vaughan. We are very happy to have the privilege of coming here, and I represent in so doing the East Coast War Council comprised of eight companies, the Aviation Corporation, the Bell Aircraft Corporation, the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, the Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors Corporation, the Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corporation, the Glenn L. Martin Co., and the Republic Aviation Corporation.

Those companies represent 469,776 employees and 24,067 foremen, and had shipped, in the year 1942, $2,870,796,762 war equipment. That is, 98 percent, at least, of war equipment. The only other business we have done during that period is to supply some spare parts to air lines under Government release and some minor export business.

« PreviousContinue »